Saturday, December 10, 2011

Otherwise law abiding citizens.

I used to work in Boston,. in the Financial district during a period when there was a spate of intimidation robberies. Young african american men in a group would approach a lone pedestrian and ASK for their money and other valuables. A jacket would be pulled aside to reveal a gun butt and the "request" would be honored.

Now, that's the perfect example of otherwise law abiding citizens--they would be perfectly law abiding if they weren't trying to rob you!

I pointed out that those young thugs had a constitutional right to carry their firearms.

I think it is awful that anyone would want to infringe upon a thugs right to carry concealed firearms. They shouldn't be prosecuted for exercising their constitutional right. After all, they are otherwise law abiding citizens.

Even better, we can change the stand your ground laws so that those young thugs can't be prosecuted. After all, they had a legal right to be there.

11 comments:

From a legal standpoint:"Constitutional carry" does not apply to the thugs who first conspired (a felony) and then set out to rob someone.

From a law enforcement or public safety standpoint:If the thugs had no prior criminal record, and if a law enforcement officer happened to stop them before they committed their crime, and if the officer had no knowledge of their conspiracy, the officer would have no legal basis to arrest them and prevent the future crime.

Unfortunately, criminals enjoy an "uneven playing field". Law enforcement cannot arrest and prosecute without evidence. Of course evidence cannot possibly exist until after the criminal commits the crime. By definition law enforcement is reactionary.

I don't see where "constitutional carry" is the big failure. The big failure is our criminal justice system. We all know how criminals are imprisoned with short sentences, released, commit more crimes, imprisoned again, released again, and so on. If violent criminals never saw the light of day again, that would seriously reduce repeat offenses.

And it might discourage would-be criminals from getting started. As it stands, imprisoned criminals enjoy free medical and dental care, three square meals a day, free college education, exercise equipment, etc. I'm not saying prison is a cake walk. But if it were such a horrible way to finish your years, our prisons wouldn't be busting at the seams.

Back to the example of the thugs ... what do they care if police catch them? So what if they spend two years in prison. That's a chance to learn more tactics from other "professionals" ... all the while not having to worry about finding their next meal, or victim.

Would you be satisfied with a shall-issue licensing system that runs background checks on anyone applying for a license? That would make it clear that anyone legally carrying a handgun has been checked out.

"Would you be satisfied with a shall-issue licensing system that runs background checks on anyone applying for a license?"

When it's coupled with a truly functional NICS system and registration of all handguns owned by the licensee, sure.

Anonymook:

"We all know how criminals are imprisoned with short sentences, released, commit more crimes, imprisoned again, released again, and so on. If violent criminals never saw the light of day again, that would seriously reduce repeat offenses."

You THINK you KNOW that. Lotsa citations are required to support that nonsensical assertion.

"We all know how criminals are imprisoned with short sentences, released, commit more crimes, imprisoned again, released again, and so on. If violent criminals never saw the light of day again, that would seriously reduce repeat offenses."

Indefinite detention is illegal, and costly, and it has to be proportionate to crimes - and there are few where that is the case.

Beyond that, there is no evidence that longer detention is a cure for recidivism. It is consistently conservatives with their 'common sense' approach which goes with what they think SHOULD work instead of what DOES work.

The conservative point of view sees only one solution - punishment and more punishment.

Punishment is relatively ineffective compared to other options, and it is consistently more costly for that limited result than other options.

A less emotional approach looks at the causes of crime, and looks at what ACTUALLY works to reduce repeat offending by objective measurement of improvement and by understanding what leads to criminal behavior in the first place, so it can be reduced.

One of my concerns is what I like to call the "hidden criminals." Those are all the folks who haven't yet been caught at whatever it is they do. They pretend to be law-abiding and blend in with the rest, but they're really like little time-bombs waiting to go off.

Well, geez, you might have a point. Of course the report does say something about the murders being committed during the commission of a felony. Aren't most felons ineligible to own teh gunz? Wouldn't their having a weapon constitute a felony? I'm sure you'll go do some heavy lifting to figure that out.

Why do they let me post here? For the same reason they let you comment.